I like STAS and not out of childhood nostaliga, as I never watched the show then. I think it works for what they were going for. I can't think of any villain on the show I'd consider terrible.

Exactly! This is true considering that the animated series had cool villains like LUMINOUS and the Superman comics have some pretty terrible villains like MASTER JAILOR, BLOODSPORT and THE PRANKSTER.

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

Yup, but those *******s had nothing better to do than to ***** about the soul aura and Superman being a vegetarian.

If those are the worst things about BR Supes, I'll gladly accept them. Much better than some garbage about birthing matrix's

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAK®

I'm going to do something really controversial and say that Paul Dini and Bruce Timm's Superman was just as bad.

STAS was bland, especially in comparison to BTAS and JL/JLU. It did the same thing Bryne did, which was make the character dull and weak. They tried putting that Superman in their first season of Justice League, and the fans crapped on it, and rightfully so.

Dana Delany's Lois, Clancy Brown's Lex, Corey Burton's Brainiac and Michael Ironside's Darkseid are the only truly great things about that show, IMO. People love Tim Daly, but I wasn't hurting when George Newburn took his place, in fact I like George more in some respects.

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

When people talk about Waid's Birthright as being superior to the Man of Steel mini-series, I cringe. In my opinion, Byrne took everything that had come before in Superman media (aspects of comics, Reeve films and cartoons) and utilized them while modernizing them. Waid is a joke of a writer. The only good thing he ever did was a couple Batman stories in the early 90's for Detective Comics, Kingdom Come and some decent Marvel work. God to even hear the man speak in documentaries or interviews is just like nails on a chalk board.

1) Why would Superman be a vegetarian? He was a farm boy. Presumably there were cows and hogs on the Kent farm. Martha had to cook meat for dinner right?

2) Why would Clark travel abroad? You would think that once he got his powers and oh forget it. I don't get it.

I could do this all day.

F*** Mark Waid and his dumb ass stories

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

When people talk about Waid's Birthright as being superior to the Man of Steel mini-series, I cringe. In my opinion, Byrne took everything that had come before in Superman media (aspects of comics, Reeve films and cartoons) and utilized them while modernizing them. Waid is a joke of a writer. The only good thing he ever did was a couple Batman stories in the early 90's for Detective Comics, Kingdom Come and some decent Marvel work. God to even hear the man speak in documentaries or interviews is just like nails on a chalk board.

Byrne did not take everything that had come before. He ignored the core aspect of the character. And "The man of Steel" is not even a story. It feels like an ongoing regular series were they failed to print 80% of the issues. "Birthright" on the other hand was an attempt to unite some Golden Age characteristics with the Silver/Bronze Age while also keeping it modern. And it was a complete story.

Quote:

1) Why would Superman be a vegetarian? He was a farm boy. Presumably there were cows and hogs on the Kent farm. Martha had to cook meat for dinner right?

Since Superman doesn't have to eat in the first place why should he eat animals?

Quote:

2) Why would Clark travel abroad? You would think that once he got his powers and oh forget it. I don't get it.

I could do this all day.

That is the reason why you don't like the story?

Quote:

F*** Mark Waid and his dumb ass stories

Good.

Then, MOS:

1. why no plot at all?
2. why no show us why Superman wants to join the Daily Planet in the first place?
3. why does Superman spit on his origin?
4. why doesn't he even bother to find out who he is? (thin characterization)
5. why does he display his high school trophies in his apartment?
6. why is his Lois such a *****?
...

Touche, Touche! I guess that's not a valid argument coming from me. I must admit that I don't like the whole not caring about Krypton though.

1. why no plot at all?

There is a plot. It is a simple origin story that strips away all of the ridiculous notions of Superman as a boy in tights with a time traveling Legion, takes away the Super family and a lot of other campy nonsense. It also depowers Superman to what is supposed to be a golden age level.

2. why no show us why Superman wants to join the Daily Planet in the first place?

just like the golden age origin, it is implied that he wants to be close to the action so he decides to apply for a job at the Daily Planet

3. why does Superman spit on his origin?

you got me there.

4. why doesn't he even bother to find out who he is? (thin characterization)

he does later on in that same continuity when Stern, Ordway and Jurgens took over, but I agree with you, they should have dedicated at least a single issue to that plot line.

5. why does he display his high school trophies in his apartment?

maybe like any small town Kansas boy he is proud of himself (or just egotistical)

6. why is his Lois such a *****?

She's a woman of the 80's and in the 80's, career women were snobby, ruthless *******.

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

In my opinion, one of the things John Byrne and DC got right was restoring Superman's uniqueness as the Sole Survivor of the dead planet Krypton. Unfortunately DC had to go and ruin it later, by bringing back Kara Zor-El, Zod and several other kryptonians.

__________________ Dreams save us. Dreams lift us up and transform us. And on my soul I swear: until my dream where dignity, honor, and justice becomes the reality we all share I'll never stop fighting. Ever - Superman

I like STAS and not out of childhood nostaliga, as I never watched the show then. I think it works for what they were going for. I can't think of any villain on the show I'd consider terrible.

It's not a bad show in terms of writing. The voice-acting was brilliant, in fact. Clancy Brown is still the best Lex Luthor to date. Dana Delany was also a perfect Lois Lane. And of course there is Michael Ironside as Darkseid.

The biggest problem was Superman, who was boring as hell. That's what happens when you make every effort to strip Superman of all his interesting qualities. They had no idea how to use his powers correctly.

The best episodes of the show were the ones with Darkseid, because it was pure Jack Kirby silver-age craziness. Which is far more interesting than bland, pedestrian post-crisis Superman.

In my opinion, one of the things John Byrne and DC got right was restoring Superman's uniqueness as the Sole Survivor of the dead planet Krypton. Unfortunately DC had to go and ruin it later, by bringing back Kara Zor-El, Zod and several other kryptonians.

I always look at it like this... Superman can still be the last son of Krypton because in my mind, Zod and Co. come from the Phantom Zone so they survived by default, Supergirl is still the biological matrix and Conner Kent (Superboy) is a clone from Superman's DNA.

That is the continuity that I will follow until I die.

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

It's not a bad show in terms of writing. The voice-acting was brilliant, in fact. Clancy Brown is still the best Lex Luthor to date. Dana Delany was also a perfect Lois Lane. And of course there is Michael Ironside as Darkseid.

The biggest problem was Superman, who was boring as hell. That's what happens when you make every effort to strip Superman of all his interesting qualities. They had no idea how to use his powers correctly.

The best episodes of the show were the ones with Darkseid, because it was pure Jack Kirby silver-age craziness. Which is far more interesting than bland, pedestrian post-crisis Superman.

Summed it up perfectly, really.

When they let Supes cut loose on the JL cartoon, he became more interesting

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

My absolute favorite change John Byrne, Marv Wolfman, and DC did for the 1986 reboot was restoring Kal-El/Superman's uniqueness as the Sole Survivor of Krypton.

__________________ Dreams save us. Dreams lift us up and transform us. And on my soul I swear: until my dream where dignity, honor, and justice becomes the reality we all share I'll never stop fighting. Ever - Superman

My absolute favorite change John Byrne, Marv Wolfman, and DC did for the 1986 reboot was restoring Kal-El/Superman's uniqueness as the Sole Survivor of Krypton.

Which lead to Matrix Supergirl, Kandor-That-Isn't-Kandor, Eradicator, Pocket Universe Zod and **** like that... you cannot have your cake and eat it too. I can see the appeal of the idea but you just have to sacrifice so much to make it work. Kryptonians appeared already in the early 50s, so.

When an idea is out of the bag you simply cannot kill it. Writers and editors (especially) will never have the discipline to keep him the sole survivors, sooner or later the first cop-outs happen and then they don't care anymore.

It is still easier if he is the sole survivor, but having the other Kryptonians from the Phantom Zone or as clones.

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

Agreed, also I don't get why some people say John Byrne's Superman looks like a bodybuilder? Sure he looks like a big, muscular, guy. But this does not look like a bodybuilder type physique to me.

__________________ Dreams save us. Dreams lift us up and transform us. And on my soul I swear: until my dream where dignity, honor, and justice becomes the reality we all share I'll never stop fighting. Ever - Superman

When it comes to MOS vs Birthright, I like them both the same amount. Both have something that's better or worse than the other.

The first half of Birthright was really good, and as a response to some who had an issue with Clark traveling the world, why not? It actually makes sense for someone like Clark who has a passion for journalism to gain experience overseas and learn about other cultures. It also made the disguise work than in Byrne's run IMO. I liked Clark and Lois chemistry in this story as well. However I'm not a fan of the art and the second half isn't as good as the first.

Now, while I for the most enjoy Byrne's run on the character, the biggest flaw his run had was fouling up the Legion timeline, he still could've had Clark interact with the Legion without being Superboy, now if for people who say it wouldn't work because Byrne's Clark got his powers at his teens, it worked on both the animated series and Smallville. There were some stuff I had issues like the portrayle of Krypton, Clark as a successful football star in Smallville and not having Clark and Lex know eachother in Smallville, I thought Byrne could've made that last part of Pre-Crisis mythos work. And I'm not a fan of Byrne's Krypton.

But that is outweighed by the stuff I like the Kents being alive, Clark not being overly meek, have Superman start off with less powers, Lex Luthor as a business tycoon, the increased exposure of the Planet staff as well as the rest of the supporting cast

To give credit where credit is due, Byrne's version is an easy origin to digest for a lot of readers and an effective starting point.

In the end, I kind of prefer the first 3 episode premier of the animated series over those 2.

It seems that as I read the Byrne stuff story after story, I am even more a fan of Byrne's Superman. Byrne seems to have known who Superman is, at least for his own stories, and made the entirity of the mythos more interesting than it was in the 50s, 60's and 70's.

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

Well, the 50's and 60's were the least serious takes on Superman so in my opinion, those decades were not that interesting. ChaCha!

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

Yeah I'm not the biggest fan of the silly stuff but it was of its time it worked back then.

It just shows you how puerile, juvenile, simplistic and innocent things were back then. Superman since the middle bronze age as Clark Kent has been a kick-ass superhero with lots of character development, but when you imagine that as a boy he jumped dimensions and had a superdog and a super horse and on and on... it becomes farcical and you wonder why anyone would read that ****.

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

It just shows you how puerile, juvenile, simplistic and innocent things were back then. Superman since the middle bronze age as Clark Kent has been a kick-ass superhero with lots of character development, but when you imagine that as a boy he jumped dimensions and had a superdog and a super horse and on and on... it becomes farcical and you wonder why anyone would read that ****.

I'm inclined to agree. It was a lot more serious and pulp-inspired and back then he wasn't a sun god or anything. Just a guy out there doing a lot of hard work for the benefit of humanity. When I think of the modern Superman, I like to think about the golden age one, just with a bigger supporting cast and super-villains.

Mort Weisinger was the worst thing to happen to Superman, however without him much of the mythology would not exist. Whoever got so far away from Jerry and Joe's original vision may be the reason why Superman is looked down upon these days.

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

I love what Weisenger did, Superman is one of my favorites thanks to what he did
Golden Age Superman is the best thing to be released in that time, and I think it's one of my favorite eras of the character